#22 - Archaeologist: After the last ice age, groups of

[James Finch]

Hi Nola,

Exactly! Answer choice (B) would indicate that Clovis points were invented independently in both Siberia and America, but doesn't tell us anything about which would have come first (ie the conclusion we're trying to strengthen). (A), on the other hand, would suggest that the Clovis points were first made in Siberia, as they are the oldest found, then brought by migrants across the Bering land bridge to America, strengthening the idea that they were invented outside the Americas.

Of course, there could always be new archaeological discoveries that found even older Clovis points in the Americas, suggesting that actually they were invented in America and then brought to Siberia, but we have to rely on the evidence presented, not speculation.

Good job!

[hassan66]

Hi, I instinctively wanted to choose A but I thought that answer was too easy, especially considering it was towards the end of the section. I also thought that the Bering Bridge would be in the answer choice because otherwise, there was absolutely no point in it being mentioned. A would still hold true if we just said they crossed into North America and the oldest clovis points were found in Siberia. Do the testmakers frequently include language in the stimulus that can be completely ignored?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I wouldn't say the land bridge can be completely ignored, hasan66. The fact that it is no longer there is intended to be misinterpreted as a limiting factor on the source of the Clovis points found in Siberia. It's not, of course, but you can't just ignore that information - you have to deal with it and eliminate it from consideration. But as far as stimuli containing information that is ultimately not needed in order to select the correct answer, yes indeed, the authors will do that all the time! You have to sift through all the information that is provided, determine what matters and what does not for your analysis, and then prephrase the answer. Don't ignore anything! Sort through it, weigh it, and then act on it.

[sparrrkk_]

Hi,

I was able to narrow down my choices to A & B.
Since it says "contrary to previous belief", are we supposed to assume that there are clovis points found in North America?
I originally chose B, but I see that this leaves the possibility of paleohumans in North America and Siberia inventing Clovis points independently.
However, I am struggling to understand how A is the correct answer.
Is it a stretch to consider the possibility that paleohumans in North America could have invented Clovis points and brought the oldest Covis points back to Sibera? I was thinking maybe if these paleohumans wanted to bring the older ones as an example to show the paleohumans in Sibera or something...
Should we just assume, generally, that older typically indicates where something was invented?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The stimulus certainly implies that archaeologists must have found some Clovis points in North America, sparrrkk_, because otherwise there would have been no basis for believing that they were invented there.

You're right that paleohumans could have brought Clovis points back to Siberia before the bridge disappeared, and that would certainly weaken the argument that they were NOT invented in North America. But it looks like you are putting too much pressure on the answer to this Strengthen question. We don't need to PROVE that they were not invented in North America - that would be a Justify the Conclusion question. We only need some evidence that helps that claim, something to put in the "pro" column for our author. If the Clovis points in Siberia are older than any previously found in North America, it certainly HELPS the claim that they weren't invented in North America, suggesting instead that they were invented in Siberia and carried over the bridge by those early paleohumans. That's all we need - help - in order to strengthen an argument.

You don't have to assume anything about the relationship between age and invention, other than that "invented" would indicate the very first appearance of a thing. A man-made object cannot exist until it has been invented and created. If you have two examples of a thing, and they are of different ages, the younger one is probably not a sign of when that thing was invented. Sure, they could have been invented independently in two different times and places, but we should not assume that is the case any more than we should assume anything else on this test.

[miriamson07]

Hello Powerscore,

I am confused about answer choice B being incorrect. This is because I thought the portion of the stimulus "after the last ice age, groups of paleohumans left Siberia and crossed the Bering land bridge, which no longer exists, into North America" means that all of the paleohumans had left Siberia for North America, and never went back to Siberia. I also thought the second sentence of the stimulus that defines clovis points as "the distinctive stone spear points made by paleohumans" meant that these clovis points are made by paleohumans only. Thus, if answer choice B is correct, "the Bering land bridge disappeared before any of the Clovis points found to date were made," then the clovis points had to have been made in Siberia.

I am guessing that I incorrectly made the assumption that all of the paleohumans left Siberia for North America. Maybe some of them still stayed in Siberia. Maybe I also incorrectly made the assumption that the clovis points were made by paleohumans only. Do you think this is the case?

Thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi miriamson,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the earlier posts in this forum thread, as there Answer B has been discussed quite a bit. I'd especially suggest reading Nikki's earlier post (Post #4), which can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=527&t=7936

To answer your questions, be very careful making unwarranted assumptions. We can only stick to the facts given. While we know that groups of paleohumans left Siberia and traveled to North America, we do not know that all the paleohumans left Siberia. We also do not know whether there were separate groups of paleohumans who were already in North America prior to the ones who migrated there from Siberia. We also don't know whether paleohumans traveled from North America to Siberia. We don't even know for certain that paleohumans couldn't have traveled to/from Siberia and North America after the Bering land bridge was destroyed (perhaps they could have travel in boats, for example). In short, we don't know much beyond the few facts that we are given.

The Bering land bridge turns out to be a bit of red herring in this question.